I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

To select a handful of papers and represent it as cast iron proof that some time in the medieval period was warmer then now seems to me to be dishonest when so many lines of evidence do not support that bold assertion.

Spot, the problem with it is when you have the guys and gals of ANDRILL drilling into the sea bed from above the sea ice and they make a statement like this in their financial review like

"Over 4000 samples from snow sections and ice cores have been analysed for isotopes andgeochemical elements. These indicators of change are providing information on the age of thesnow/ice, air temperature, degree of windiness, extent of sea ice and ocean turbulence. Preliminaryresults have identified the Little Ice Age, a cold spell from 1400 to 1850 AD mostly found inNorthern Hemispheric records, when temperatures were ~1oC cooler than today. The record alsoidentified potentially the termination of the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) whentemperatures were 1 to 2oC warmer and storms more prevalent than now."

FromANTARCTIC RESEARCH CENTREVICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTONREPORT FOR 2008, WITH OUTLINE FOR 2009 AND BEYOND

They would be foolish to say anything like this if it were not true, they also reveal a few other things in the report as well as their research as a whole. There is another report that clearly states part of the 2009 funding will be put to looking into the MWP signal.

Now this is in essence as far from the northern hemisphere as you can get, being at the south pole, showing if they have signals in their cores that show it happened that it is a global event, with variation in the southern hemisphere because it is not as clear in sites from other studies as it is in the northern hemisphere.

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

If the signal is correct and is more than a "blip" on the temperature trend, we can talk, but as it stands now the impact was not seen a global.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD inthe Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration ofthe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in Chinathan in the Western Hemisphere [24]. However, at almostthe same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observedin the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggestedthat the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronouslyat the high elevations of western China and high latitudes ofthe Northern Hemisphere. It should also be noted that thelongest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronouswith the worldwide LIA maximum [26].

Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

Spot, the problem with it is when you have the guys and gals of ANDRILL drilling into the sea bed from above the sea ice and they make a statement like this in their financial review like

"Over 4000 samples from snow sections and ice cores have been analysed for isotopes andgeochemical elements. These indicators of change are providing information on the age of thesnow/ice, air temperature, degree of windiness, extent of sea ice and ocean turbulence. Preliminaryresults have identified the Little Ice Age, a cold spell from 1400 to 1850 AD mostly found inNorthern Hemispheric records, when temperatures were ~1oC cooler than today. The record alsoidentified potentially the termination of the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) whentemperatures were 1 to 2oC warmer and storms more prevalent than now."

FromANTARCTIC RESEARCH CENTREVICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTONREPORT FOR 2008, WITH OUTLINE FOR 2009 AND BEYOND

They would be foolish to say anything like this if it were not true, they also reveal a few other things in the report as well as their research as a whole. There is another report that clearly states part of the 2009 funding will be put to looking into the MWP signal.

Now this is in essence as far from the northern hemisphere as you can get, being at the south pole, showing if they have signals in their cores that show it happened that it is a global event, with variation in the southern hemisphere because it is not as clear in sites from other studies as it is in the northern hemisphere.

Why would that be foolish? The complete set of results may not support the conclusions of the preliminary data. That is not a statement that would cause trouble for them, but ,ight get them some funding from the oil companies.

This is 2012, what have they determined in the last 3-4 years?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD inthe Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration ofthe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in Chinathan in the Western Hemisphere [24]. However, at almostthe same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observedin the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggestedthat the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronouslyat the high elevations of western China and high latitudes ofthe Northern Hemisphere. It should also be noted that thelongest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronouswith the worldwide LIA maximum [26].

Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

Arctic Ice extent is to a large part dependent on temperature, in common with most reconstructions it does seem to indicate a warmer period in the middle ages followed by a cooling in the early modern period. but recently we see a a massive drop off of sea ice extent, what could possibly be causing that and what are the implications?

Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD inthe Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration ofthe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in Chinathan in the Western Hemisphere [24]. However, at almostthe same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observedin the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggestedthat the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronouslyat the high elevations of western China and high latitudes ofthe Northern Hemisphere. It should also be noted that thelongest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronouswith the worldwide LIA maximum [26].

Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

It was a Global phenomena, with many places having seen substantially warmer climates during the MWP than the CWP.

Depending on how you redefine the MWP and cherry pick the data.

Snowy123 wrote:

I bolded a section in the paper that you didn't like (or decided not to bold).

Why would I not like it? It along with the other data indicates warming blips within a large range which may or may not be global in nature.

Quote:

Spongebob is correct that the MWP was probably Global, as ice core readings in Antarctica, far away from Europe, Asia and North America confirm that the MWP existed there as well.

The MWP during what years and for how long? A warming spike of a few years maximum in a locality within a range of four centuries have what impact on the global temperature average?

Quote:

I don't see why some try and deny Earth's climatic history when they try and argue that most of the warming in the CWP was anthropogenic.

Who denies the history? All we deny is the attempt to draw invalid conclusions by redefinition and cherry picking of data. To define the MWP as a couple of decades long warming spike within a 400 year window just does not match that of the normal definition of MWP previously used.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein